Dear Sir,With this article the Economist has shown that it intends to be a publication dedicated to social and political pandering instead of a dedication to Economics. Obama's embrace of socialism and class warfare goes against every principle of free economics that I have ever learned from this magazine.My subscription expires in a month or so and I will not be renewing it because of this. I realize that one subscription is hardly significant but I cannot support it anymore. Anyone that can tolerate hypocrisy can tolerate anything. Hypocrisy may be alright with you but it is not with me. I see this story as nothing more than an attempt to jump on the bandwagon. I truly expected more than a pandering article. You have now become an expensive version of Newsweek.

I'd just like to add the following to your comment (which I'm sure you probably intended anyway): "Racial relations will not heal in America merely because Obama was elected president".

As if America doesn't have enough problems to deal with right now from the economic downturn, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to many potentially dangerous foreign issues that could easily flair in to crises at a moments notice, I fear that we've just added new racial tensions to the mix.

NPR reported, just this morning, on strong verbal conflict between groups of blacks and whites at one college. Immediately after the election, I overheard some white workers loudly denouncing Obama while their black co-workers stayed happily segregated off to themselves. Will there be more such sad instances across America? I hope not.

Being part of a multi-ethnic family, myself, in which ethnic diversity is celebrated, I would never ever want to take away the happiness and joy that I've seen in my fellow African-Americans since the election was decided. In truth, I am in great conflict because I cannot support a president with Obama's liberal agendas and inexperience, but at the same time I recognize the pride that his election appears to symbolize for black people in America. I just wish he could have had experience and more Republican ideals. It is very frustrating to me that I feel the conflicted need to positively recognize the significant symbolic nature of Obama's election amongst many African-Americans while also recognizing that I must remain true to myself in subscribing to correct ideology over correct symbology. For a man to govern effectively, correct ideology must always trump correct symbology.

That said, I have one further concern about the new racial issues that America will have to address in this new future. I fear that as soon as Obama does something displease (or does not do something to please) radical black activists (who are also racists in their own right) that all of a sudden Obama's multi-ethnic background will magically become a recognized issue. Emphasizing that Obama is not truly, fully black, people such as Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton may forget the "unity" they preached and the tears they shed for Obama and attack him as racist and not really representative of African-Americans, pointing out that a true black person has never been elected president. Will this be the unfortunate reality, the dynamics of racial politics? I sincerely hope not.

So, pardon me if I do not agree with Obama's ideology and inexperience for the presidency, for I do recognize what he symbolizes and I am truly happy for the joy I have seen reflected in the faces of black men, women, and children since the election. My congratulations to you, if not to Obama himself....

SirI expect better analysis from THE ECONOMIST.The first problem I have with your endorsement of Barrack Obama is the assertion that "it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein." This hints at the same type of racial judgement that McCain supporters have been falsely accused of over the past three months. Anyone who follows the evolution of radical Islam and Al Qaeda would know that Osama Bin Laden's primary targets include the royal family of Saudi Arabia, in addition to westerners. Radical Islam sees progressive muslims the same way as they see western christians, as infidels. And they do not care who they kill to reach their goal. Furthermore, it was the Bush policy of the surge that has won the hearts of Iraqis, and has turned them against Al Qaeda. I am disgusted by those who talk about the "mismanagement" of the Iraq war when the only leader in the world who has shown to responsibility and integrity to finish what he or she started has been President Bush. His insistence on the surge is nothing short of heroic, despite his many shortfalls. The idea that Islamic extremists will relent their quest just because the US has a black president with a middle name of "Hussein" is absolutely preposterous.Secondly, you call Obama's determination to focus on the war in Afghanistan "prescient." After I looked this word up I almost vomited. This assessment is nothing short of irresponsible. NO ONE has been able to explain why Barrack Obama is more qualified than General Petraus, who disagrees with Obama, to determine which war is more important. Ever since the surge started showing signs of success, General Petraus has reminded President Bush, Congress, and the world that the gains of the surge are reversible, and we could quickly find ourselves where we were before the surge. He also stated that Iraq is the battleground where the war with Al Qaeda is fought. The bottom line is that Obama has claimed that the war in Afghanistan is more important in order to achieve political gain. That alone is reason enough not to vote for him.Finally, there is more to protectionism than supporting a China bashing bill. Obama's corporate tax policy and dividend hikes will make America one of the most expensive places to do business in the world. Most frightening is his proposal to increase tax on overseas income to the same level as domestic income, from 13.5% to 39.6% - A 200 PERCENT INCREASE. Corporations will also have to pay local taxes in the country they operate. Such a proposal couldn't come at a worse time, when the percentage of corporations' income derived from outside the US is increasing every year. Your candidate is indeed protectionist.In one regard I understand you decision. EVERYONE WANTS TO BE ON THE WINNING TEAM.

Today is a fascinating day. Obama is being briefed on the Top Secret affairs of our government. Today is the day that he will learn that his foreign policy was naive and that he had simply pandered to the popular but ignorant sentiment that we should immediately bring the troops home.

His choice of Chief of State today, Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, should bear out all the things I've written recently about Iraq and WMDs among other things.

Here is a juicy little tidbit for the ill-informed:

Fortune (9/25/2006)
"Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull Politician," by Washington Bureau chief Nina Easton notes: "On Iraq, Emanuel has steered clear of the withdraw-now crowd, preferring to criticize Bush for military failures since the 2003 invasion. `The war never had to turn out this way,' he told me at one of his campaign stops. In January 2005, when asked by Meet the Press's Tim Russert whether he would have voted to authorize the war-`knowing that there are no weapons of mass destruction'-Emanuel answered yes. (He didn't take office until after the vote.) 'I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, okay?' he added."

Well, at least I can agree with Obama's Chief of State-to-be on one thing. As I mentioned before folks, our troops won't be coming home any sooner under Obama than they would have under McCain. Yet, McCain had the experience to deal with the dangerous foreign policy issues that our nation will soon be facing if Russian rhetoric upon Obama's election is any indication. Even Biden stated that he thought there would be an intentional international crisis of some sort to test Obama. Let's hope for our country's sake that we can come through it safely. I'm not so sure.

jgnola:I imagine you and I would differ greatly in our opinions, but I thank you for your thoughtful response to the article, and, in particular, the "southern fried" comment.I might have written that myself, but you keenly pointed out that it is indeed a slur.I was marginally for Obama, but I appreciate your observation nonetheless.Best wishes,mexicymru

Mr. Nitro,If you intended to write satire, it would have been a brilliant post. Considering you were serious, it was one of the most moronic (though delightful) things I've ever read. The problems of the Bush administration have all been caused by radical liberals who refused to work with the very reasonable, honest, and bipartisan Mr. Bush. Riiiight. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in.ClintonHills,Enjoyed the Flatland reference.

Yes we, together, the majority of Americans have washed our hands of Bush and the likes. The international perception of this Country has suffered. We now have someone of intellect who will consider consequences before acting. We have been told we will be attacked again. Lets infringe upon our citizens rights in order to protect them! maybe they can be herded. Lets do a preemptive strike! Shoot first and ask questions later. WMD, No more!...

What Bush Administration in 2000? Oh yes, now I remember, there was that folksy wastrel who got his name and face on the GOP ticket and listened up hard to his (experienced) dad, who told him just to follow whatever instructions Uncle Dick, Uncle Don and Uncle Karl gave him. First Uncle Don went away, then Uncle Karl, so Uncle Bob and Cousin Condi had to come and help out, 'cause the job was just so darn tough to do all by your lonesome. He'd promised to be a great uniter, to reach across the aisle - which he in fact did when it came to doling out pork, which Democrat politicians gobbled up almost as avidly as their Republican counterparts. Then there was that 9/11 thing, which tragedy engendered a huge wave of pro-American sympathy from abroad, a veritable love-fest of bipartisan solidarity at home, and a couple of dirty wars against weak, impoverished, Islamic countries (from neither of which did a single 9/11 terrorist come). For some strange reason, the good feelings didn't last, with those godless radical politicians from the left shouting nasty things like Guantanamo, no WMD, Katrina, deficit, and other incomprehensible slanders. Now I turn on the TV, see that we have an intelligent president the whole world respects, and realize it was all just a bad dream...

I never saw Democrats support Bush from 2000 on. I saw their divisiveness, stone-walling, and hatred for Bush and his administration. For Democrats to talk as if we should all now come unite together is absurd and unrealistic. I always thought the "Borg" of Star Trek to be a strange concept, but I'm afraid it is already becoming a reality as half the country seems to have dunk some sort of "happy-love-juice" to counteract their former hatred. Oh, but we have a Democrat for president now. Everyone should be happy and support him. He may technically be my president, but I did not vote for him. I do not support his spoken policies of spreading the wealth in a "Borg" sort of fashion. And I will be waiting for others to realize what a poor choice they've made as soon as 4 years of his inexperience in the position of Commander-In-Chief comes to a close. Then, perhaps, we can begin real change and lift the new cloud that has descended upon America.

So we can surmise that Brad-Cos recommended NicNitro's surrogate speech for Bush, but I wonder who else? Not that it matters -- such starkly paranoid mumblings do little more than betray the ideological rigidity of its authors and rarely persuade those of curious and free intellect.From someone presumably concerned about a less-than-united United States, we get this: "If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer."So, because the Democrats took the election (which I'm pretty sure they've done before to no cataclysmic end at all), America is doomed.The real give-away, though, is here: "You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran." The United States is not defined by Judeo-Christianity, despite many Judeo-Christian attempts, especially in recent years, to do so. Nor, for that matter, is Judeo-Christianity demonstrably superior to Islam, nor especially demonstrable at all. (Point to the Bible, sure, but virtually all Christians have given up on the pretense of literal interpretation, which is too bad for them because it seriously weakens their argument. But that's another issue.)Who do you expect to enthrall with this tripe, Nic? Here's an idea -- go sell crazy someplace else.

Well, the butterflies in my tummy have me wondering if there may actually be other 'dimensions' to people and events. An uncomfortable thought to be sure, but I suppose I'll just have to trust here is sometimes more to things than meet the eye. Why, just the other day I was introduced to the twin theories of 'nuance' and 'gray' - a state of reality wherein some things aren't just black or white.

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer. I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about my quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office. The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too dang lazy to do your homework and figure it out. Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too dang stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.We face real threats in the world. Don 't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty. Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you? Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel . Did you sleep through high school? You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and they are all over the globe.You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.' Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars. I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I' ll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall. Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.

The Economist writes a thoughtful viewpoint. For a moment, I almost felt some comfort in the face of the election of the biggest far left liberal presidency and Congress ever in this nation. Then I got to the end of the article.

Thought provoking as the article is, I can't help but cringe at the notion that the President of the US is a job that allows one second of "gamble." Nor can I take any real comfort at the thought that a centrist Obama will be a President Obama in fact and reign in the far left desires of the Democratic Congress elected last night. There is absolutely nothing in his past actions that suggests this will happen. Moreover, the majorities won by the Democrats last night will enable the new Congress to over-ride any veteos a Pres. Obama would deign to sign.

On this point -- Racial relations will not heal in America. That is a very naive view that comes from a world on the outside. Consider the fact that most of the largest cities in America have black leadership and yet there is no evidence of "racial healing" in those cities. Black leadership and black America does not have a history of reaching back out to white America to "salve" wounds. There is no recognition from black America that there are any wounds among whites generated from vitriol hate and guilt trips from blacks toward whites in the past 20 years. Racial healing can not, by definition, be one sided.

Further, I also must say that I found the term "southern-fried" extremely offensive. The southern US does not have a lock hold on prejuidice. This is exactly the kind of unrestrained backlash in race relations I referred to above. You are so encouraged by the wonderful 'we have overcome" in America because we've elected an African American President that you can not see your own prejuidice. "Southern-fried", indeed.

How many times does that notion have to be debunked? Historically, "experience" measured in the simplistic way that such people are suggesting has either no correlation to the success of presidencies, or, arguably, has an INVERSE correlation to the success of presidencies. The president usually regarded as the most talented and successful in the nation's history -Lincoln- had about the same official political experience as Obama. The true measure of experience is more subtle, and should not be divorced from other qualities that effective ACTIVATE experience, such as charisma, savvy, organizational skills, demeanor, and so on. By such relevant measures (including RELEVANT measures of experience), Obama gives every indication of embodying the precise combination of factors that are typical of outstanding presidencies.